DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9-12 recites an array of “inter-electrodes” however Examiner is unsure what the scope of this term is. Examiner understands what an array of “electrodes” is but the confusion is unclear as to what change in scope the use of “inter” means? Is this based on location? Is this a hardware feature? Is it a grammar issue? Turning to the specification there is an “inter-electrode distance” which is the distance between electrodes, but that’s not what the claim is saying. For the above reasons the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim and the claim is indefinite. The claims depending from this claim share this issue and are likewise rejected. For purposes of examination Examiner is interpreting a first array of inter-electrodes as an array of electrodes.
Claim 17 contains the trademark/trade name “35N LT”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a cable alloy and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140228905 to Bolea (hereinafter Bolea – Cited in IDS dates 3/18/25) in view of EP 1487535 to Bolea et al. (hereinafter Irwin – Cited in IDS dated 3/18/25).
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses a neural interface for interfacing with a target vessel extending along an axis (abstract, [0010]-[0011], [0014], [0712]), the neural interface comprising:
a first arm (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184] see also [0712]; three arms shown in 16E two on the outsides and middle one first arm is first of the outside arms) including a first electrode (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184], [0207] see also [0189], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A), the first arm extending around the axis in a winding direction (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184], [0207] see also [0712]);
a second arm (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184] see also [0712]) including a second electrode (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184], [0207] see also [0189], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A; second outside arm), the second arm extending around the axis in the winding direction (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184], [0207] see also [0712]);
a third arm positioned between the first arm and the second arm (Fig. 16E, [0184] see also [0180]-[0183], [0712]; middle arm), arranged along the axis between the first arm and the second arm and extending around the axis opposite the winding direction (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184] see also [0712]);
wherein the first arm, the second arm, and the third arm are each formed of a flexible material that is configured to enable each of the first arm, the second arm, and the third arm to self-size to a surface of the target vessel when the neural interface is released at a position along the target vessel ([0183] including “For example, each of opposing arms 1602 may have an unattached terminal end 1602 a. . . . For example, arms 1602 may be made from an elastomer, such as, for example, silicone or polyurethane”, [0184] including “a self-sizing and expandable nerve cuff”, Fig. 16E see also [0180]-[0182], [0712]), and further wherein none of the first arm, the second arm, nor the third arm form a closed circumscribed circular are around the target vessel at any point along a length of the target vessel ([0183]-[0184], Fig. 16E see also [0180]-[0182], [0712]); and
a spinal portion configured to house electrical conductors for the first array and the second array (Fig. 16E, [0176], [0180] see also [0181]-[0184], [0712]), the spinal portion being connected to one or more of the first arm, the third arm, and the second arm (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184] see also [0712]),
wherein the first electrode and the second electrode integrated with the flexible material ([0180]-[0181] including “Electrode contacts 166 comprising a coil, foil strip, conductive elastomer or individual solid conductors may be carried by the sheet 162 with an exposed inside surface to establish electrical contact with the nerve.” See also [0712]).
An interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose a first array of inter-electrodes and a first interconnect arranged to electrically couple each of the first array of inter-electrodes; second array of inter-electrodes and a second interconnect arranged to electrically couple each of the first array of inter-electrodes; electrode arrays are created by embedding electrodes into the flexible material.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Irwin teaches electrode arrays each with an interconnect arranged to electrically couple each of the array of electrodes ([0098], [0100]-[0101], figs. 8-13 see also [0092], [0102]-[0105], [0112]-[0113], [0115]); they are created by embedding electrodes into the flexible material ([0099]-[0100], [0108]-[0109] including “electrodes may be molded into the base structure”; Examiner notes that “created by embedding . . .” appears to be a product by process element see MPEP 2113(I))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Bolea to include arrays of electrodes with electrodes of each array interconnected as taught by Iriwn because using arrays of electrodes precise locations can be mapped and therapy applied more effectively which promotes long term efficacy and reduces power requirements ([0011], [0101]).
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose wherein the first array and the second array have a width of between 1 mm and 4 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Irwin teaches wherein the first array and the second array have a width of between 1 mm and 4 mm ([0109] including “ribbon electrodes 302 may be used, each having a width of 1 mm”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Bolea to include arrays of electrodes with electrodes of each array interconnected as taught by Iriwn because using arrays of electrodes precise locations can be mapped and therapy applied more effectively which promotes long term efficacy and reduces power requirements ([0011], [0101]).
Regarding Claim 5, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the material is a silicon-based material ([0146], [0176], [0183] including “arms 1602 may be made from an elastomer, such as, for example, silicone or polyurethane.” See also [0712]).
Regarding Claim 8, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the first arm, the second arm, and the third arm are each separated sufficiently to allow radial expansion and contraction of the target vessel ([0183] including “For example, each of opposing arms 1602 may have an unattached terminal end 1602 a. . . . For example, arms 1602 may be made from an elastomer, such as, for example, silicone or polyurethane”, [0184] including “a self-sizing and expandable nerve cuff”, Fig. 16E see also [0180]-[0182], [0712]; to the extent “to allow . . .” is an intended use of the device the device disclosed by the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use) without compressing nerves in the target vessel or reducing blood flow or fluid exchange with tissue of the target vessel ([0183]-[0184], Fig. 16E see also [0180]-[0182], [0712]; to the extent “without . . .” is an intended use of the device the device disclosed by the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use).
Regarding Claim 9, an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose wherein each inter-electrode is spaced a substantially constant distance from an adjacent inter-electrode to provide a substantially uniform current density.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Irwin teaches wherein each inter-electrode is spaced a substantially constant distance from an adjacent inter-electrode to provide a substantially uniform current density ([0101]-[0104], Figs. 7, 9-11; to the extent “to provide . . .” is an intended use of the device the device recited by the prior art references is structurally capable of performing the intended use).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Bolea to include arrays of electrodes with electrodes of each array interconnected as taught by Iriwn because using arrays of electrodes precise locations can be mapped and therapy applied more effectively which promotes long term efficacy and reduces power requirements ([0011], [0101]).
Regarding Claim 10, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the interconnect comprises a microcoil connecting the inter-electrodes within each array ([0141], [0152], [0180], [0208], [0241], Figs. 7, 16A-E see also [0428], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A).
Regarding Claim 11, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the microcoil interconnect comprises a parallel connection between the inter-electrodes within each array ([0141], [0148]-[0149], [0152], [0712], Figs. 6-7, see also [0428], Figs. 16A-E, 21A, 27A).
Bolea discloses the claimed invention except for the electrodes and connections being in series. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to rearranged the parts from being in parallel to being in series (the binary layout options), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 12, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the interconnect comprises three microcoil interconnects in parallel ([0141], [0152], [0180], [0208], [0241], Figs. 7, 16A-E see also [0428], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A).
an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose connecting four inter-electrodes within each array.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Irwin teaches connecting four inter-electrodes within each array ([0098], [0100]-[0101], figs. 8-13 see also [0092], [0102]-[0105], [0112]-[0113], [0115]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Bolea to include arrays of electrodes with electrodes of each array interconnected as taught by Iriwn because using arrays of electrodes precise locations can be mapped and therapy applied more effectively which promotes long term efficacy and reduces power requirements ([0011], [0101]).
Bolea in view of Irwin discloses the claimed invention except for the electrodes and connections being in series. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to rearranged the parts from being in parallel to being in series (the binary layout options), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 13, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the interconnect comprises conductors covered with the flexible material of the neural interface ([0148]-[0149], [0176], [0712]).
Regarding Claim 14, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the conductors extend through the spinal portion and are covered with silicon lead body tubing where they exit the flexible material ([0141], [0176], [0712], Figs. 6-7, 16A-E).
Regarding Claim 15, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the interconnect comprises stranded cable ([0141], [0152], [0176], [0180], [0208], [0241], Figs. 7, 16A-E see also [0428], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A).
Regarding Claim 16, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the interconnect comprises a multi-filar coil configuration ([0141], [0152], [0176], [0180], [0208], [0241] including “The conductors may be formed of multi-filar wire”, Figs. 7, 16A-E see also [0428], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A).
Regarding Claim 18, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the neural interface consists of exactly three arms and the spinal portion (Fig. 16E, [0180]-[0184] see also [0712]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolea in view of Irwin in further view of US 4920979 to Bullara (hereinafter Bullara – Cited in IDS dated 3/18/25).
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose wherein the third arm is connected to the first arm by a first spiral section and the third arm is connected to the second arm by a second spiral section, wherein the third arm, the first spiral section and the first arm are configured to complete a first helical turn around the target vessel in a first direction when the neural interface is positioned on the target vessel, wherein the third arm, the second spiral section and the second arm are configured to complete a second helical turn around the target vessel in a second direction opposite the first direction when the neural interface is positioned on the target vessel.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Bullara teaches wherein the third arm is connected to the first arm by a first spiral section and the third arm is connected to the second arm by a second spiral section, wherein the third arm, the first spiral section and the first arm are configured to complete a first helical turn around the target vessel in a first direction when the neural interface is positioned on the target vessel, wherein the third arm, the second spiral section and the second arm are configured to complete a second helical turn around the target vessel in a second direction opposite the first direction when the neural interface is positioned on the target vessel (Fig. 1 shows “bridge portion” 12 between two arms “helical portions” 13 and 14 extending out opposite directions, Col 2:48-Col 3:2,).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Bolea to have helical portions between the middle arm and the outside arms as recite by Bullara because it is merely the simple substitution of one layout of the device for another. Separately, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the arms of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 3, an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose wherein a helix angle of the first helical turn and the second helical turn is less than 15 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Bullara teaches a first and second helical turns (Fig. 1 shows “bridge portion” 12 between two arms “helical portions” 13 and 14 extending out opposite directions, Col 2:48-Col 3:2,)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Bolea to have helical portions between the middle arm and the outside arms as recite by Bullara because it is merely the simple substitution of one layout of the device for another.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the arms of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. For example, Bolea in view of Bullara discloses a helical shape as claimed to have a particular angle of 15 degrees, is merely a change in form or shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolea in view of Irwin in further view of US 20160354992 to Kolberg et al. (hereinafter Kolberg).
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose wherein the silicon-based material is doped with a steroid drug.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Kolberg teaches wherein the silicon-based material is doped with a steroid drug ([0016] including “with steroids, so as to suppress inflammation processes.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silicone based material of the stimulator device as recited by Bolea to include steroids in order to suppress inflammation ([0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolea in view of Irwin in further view of US 20120053577 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee – Cited in IDS dated 3/18/25).
Regarding claim 7, an interpretation of Bolea may not wherein the silicon-based material is coated with a hydrophilic polymer.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Lee teaches wherein the silicon-based material is coated with a hydrophilic polymer ([0188]; the cite portion recites that devices are known to be made of silicone and hydrophilic material are known to be used as coatings for implantable devices).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the implantable device using silicone as recited in Bolea to include a hyrdophillic coating as recited in Lee as it combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The bull reference recites a silicone based materially for the implantable device, and Lee recites “Generally, hydrophilic polymers are polymers chosen for coating a medical device to form a coated surface.” ([0188]), which is a known coating and would yield a predictable result of having a hydrophilic coating on the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolea in view of Irwin in further view of Boston Scientific, Precision Spinal Cord Stimulator System Clinician Manual Directions for Use, https://uhms.org/images/MEDFAQs/91083273-01_RevA_Precision_Spinal_Cord_Stimulator_System_Clinician_Manua.pdf, 2015, viewed on 8/6/26 (hereinafter Boston).
Regarding Claim 17, an interpretation of Bolea further discloses wherein the interconnect comprises DFT (Drawn Filled Tubing) with a 28% Ag core ([0141] including “bifilar coil of insulated (e.g., ETFE) braided stranded wire (BSW) of MP35NLT material”, [0152] including “insulated and coiled BSW or solid wire (optionally DFT silver core wire)”, [0176], [0180], [0208], [0241], Figs. 7, 16A-E see also [0428], [0712], Figs. 21A, 27A).
While Bolea recites an Ag core, an interpretation of Bolea may not explicitly disclose a 35N LT® DFT 28% Ag core.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Boston teaches a 28% Ag core (clinician manual pg 61/69 recites “35N LT – DFT-28% Ag”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DFT silver core wire as recited by Bolea to more specifically be a 35N LT – DFT-28% Ag because it is merely use of known technique (the particular wire, with a particular Ag percentage from Boston) to improve similar devices (neurostimulator device with wires of Bolea) in the same way.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10946189 in view of Irwin. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader than the claim in the ‘189.
Claim 24 of ‘189 discloses claim 1-3 of the current application except for a first array of inter-electrodes and a first interconnect arranged to electrically couple each of the first array of inter-electrodes; second array of inter-electrodes and a second interconnect arranged to electrically couple each of the first array of inter-electrodes; electrode arrays are created by embedding electrodes into the flexible material. However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Irwin teaches electrode arrays each with an interconnect arranged to electrically couple each of the array of electrodes ([0098], [0100]-[0101], figs. 8-13 see also [0092], [0102]-[0105], [0112]-[0113], [0115]); they are created by embedding electrodes into the flexible material ([0099]-[0100], [0108]-[0109] including “electrodes may be molded into the base structure”; Examiner notes that “created by embedding . . .” appears to be a product by process element see MPEP 2113(I)) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second electrodes on the arms of the device as disclosed by Irwin to include arrays of electrodes with electrodes of each array interconnected as taught by Iriwn because using arrays of electrodes precise locations can be mapped and therapy applied more effectively which promotes long term efficacy and reduces power requirements ([0011], [0101]).
Claim 1-2, 5-7, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12280253 in view of Bolea. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader than the claim in the ‘253.
Claim 1 of ‘253 discloses all of claim 1 in the current application, the “central portion” is being interpreted as covering an “arm”, except the third arm extending around the axis opposite of the first and second arms. Which is disclosed by Bolea (see fig. 16e and the rejection of claim 1 above in the 103 rejection). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of claim 1 of ‘253 to include the specific directional extensions recited by Bolea because it is merely combining prior art elements (the greater specificity of the layout of the direction of the extension as recited by Bolea, with the device of ‘253 claim 1) according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2 of ‘253 reads on claim 2. Claims 6-8 of ‘253 read on clams 5-7. Claim 12 of ‘253 reads on clams 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights